Members of the Women's Caucus for Gender Justice are dismayed by how provisions affecting gender in the draft Statute and the compromise package being debated by delegations, have come under attack by certain delegations and have been reopened for discussion - even if they reflect language well-used in other United Nations bodies, conferences and documents. Many of them had been unbracketed before, but have now been reopened.

"The ICC looks like it's going to be a states' court, not a court for people," Indai Sajor of the Asian Centre for Women's Human Rights told TerraViva, explaining why activists donned black armbands beginning Tuesday.

While delegations proceeded to state their positions on the compromise proposal, which seems likely to form the basis of a package deal on the statute, activists said the rebracketing of text codifying women's human rights in the draft treaty up for discussion represents a step backward.

Many aired their frustrations at a discussion held at the Palamnesty tent Tuesday evening, overcoming sound problems in the airconditioned-yet-warm tent to explain why the concept of gender was in peril at the conference.

For instance, they said, the standard non-discrimination clause in Article 20 of the draft treaty - which contains previously uncontroversial UN language - has been reopened for discussion. This clause prohibits "any adverse distinction founded on gender, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other criteria."

"In many articles of the current statute, persecution on the basis of gender isn't recognised as such. Even though the Vienna Conference on Human Rights recognised the need to integrate gender within human rights and humanitarian law," said Francesca Declich of the Italian Women's Caucus.  The elimination of gender-based violence and the need for gender balance in international bodies had also been called for at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijiing in 1995, and by UN General Assembly resolutions and declarations, the Women's Caucus said.

Language protecting the victims of enforced pregnancy was also jeopardised, speakers said, due to an alliance by the Vatican and many conservative Islamist states. "A directed effort made by certain delegations to erode the gains made by women in Beijing and other conferences is obvious... despite steadfast support for us from several delegations," said Eleanor Conda, co-director of the Women's Caucus.

Many Gulf Arab countries have blocked language on protecting victims of enforced pregnancy, fearing that such language could be used by some nations as basis in domestic law for allowing abortions in the case of rape. 

Women's rights activists find the argument flawed. "If there is to be universal justice, we can't be afraid to speak of enforced pregnancy, which like abortion curtails women's freedom. Through its history the women's movement has been fighting to eliminate such constraints," said Giancarla Codrignani, Italian delegate to the conference.

Women were also concerned about the proposal to only define trafficking in women and children for sexual purposes as slavery, which they said did not ensure their protection from non-sexual exploitation.

"Rape, sex slavery and enforced pregnancy are core issues. We need a gender-sensitive court and we need to recognise that a non-discriminatory court is a core issue. The ad hoc tribunals for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda were given jurisdiction over the crime of rape, and NGOs are still having to press to get prosecutions," said Widney Brown of Human Rights Watch.

"The negotiations are distinguishing between the "core" issues of the independence of the court, the powers of the prosecutor and universal jurisdiction and "gender" issues. I see a danger of gender being ghettoised.

The gender distinction is a false issue," she added. Helen Desa of Amnesty UK said women were more likely to be discriminated against and more likely than men to be victims of inhuman crimes. "I am very concerned that many issues related to women's rights are being hindered during negotiations and being sidelined. I am under the impression that gender issues are being used a bargaining tool. But there is still time to lobby governments over the coming days. There is hope," she said.

One of the few male members in the audience, a Peruvian university law professor and Palamnesty 'habitue', agreed: "Women are the alternative to all these men who are not doing any good."